Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: sib on January 08, 2016, 01:01:22 PM
-
From Reuters News:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-helmetlaws-michigan-injury-idUSKBN0UL2JN20160107
"Injuries soar after Michigan stops requiring motorcycle helmets"
-
What is amazing that a study is necessary to report the obvious outcome of having ones heads strike the pavement, other vehicles, power poles etc, while not wearing a helmet.
I am not saying that legislation is necessary to force people to wear a helmet, so long as the rider acknowledges that he/she is putting themselves at significant risk of death or brain injury and that the taxpayer should bear no responsibility for contributing to any health care cost resulting from an injury while not wearing a helmet.
I strongly feel the same should apply for any person involved in an accident that results in an injury while under the influence of alcohol or any other recreational drug.
Having the freedom to chose to not wear a helmet must be coupled to the responsibility of not wearing a helmet.
-
OK , first off , the lead in picture is silly , those types of helmets are almost useless and have very little to do with safety . Second , the findings re alcohol use increasing don't make ant sense . Why would folks prone to drinking and riding drink more because the weren't wearing a helmet ? Seems this research may be highly flawed . Yeah , wearing a helmet is wise , but this sounds more like a crusade than a well documented study .
Dusty
-
Dusty, consider the possibility that those non helmeted crash 'subjects' were more prone to take risks....like drinking and riding a motorcycle. Common sense tells me that it's more risky to ride without a helmet. For some people the extra risk is, in and of itself, attractive. Kinda like smoking in spite of all the proof that it's not good for your health. The study might not be as hairbrained as you think.
Peter Y.
-
"Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission."
-
"Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission."
That is misleading .
Dusty
-
One sunny Sunday back in 1980 I was returning home from lunch at Mom's and riding my brand new Tour Glide (I picked it up the day before). As I was going through a S curve at speed no more than 30 mph a car backed out of a drive and cut off my lane and 1/2 the oncoming lane. Immediate reaction was to grab front brake but the front tire locked up (did not realize it at the time). When I scrubbed off enough speed I released the brake and intended to use the far left side of the oncoming lane to ride out of the danger.
I did not realize until years later the meaning of high-side, and the importance of not letting off the front brake if the ft tire was locked up and skidding. As I lifted the front brake lever I found my bike went right and I went left. I was on the ground before I knew it.
I was wearing my Bell open face helmet and when I got home I realized I had a bloody nose. The side of my head with my helmet on hit the pavement hard enough for a nose bleed. I had thought many times after if I would still be around without that helmet.
-
This is an odd report for sure.
The drinking increase is a coincidence...do not see how they could add that in as a correlation but...........
off topic - if I had to choose between being on the road with someone texting while driving versus a drunk driver I might opt for the drunk driver. Out of the 2, the drunk driver is at least attempting to drive the vehicle.
-
I did not realize until years later the meaning of high-side, and the importance of not letting off the front brake if the ft tire was locked up and skidding. As I lifted the front brake lever I found my bike went right and I went left. I was on the ground before I knew it.
If your front tire skids from over braking, you need to let up enough on the brake lever to get it rolling again immediately. Make sure it's pointed in your direction of travel when you do that. From what you described, it was turned to the right, so when it started rolling again, it made the bike go that direction suddenly.
It's the rear wheel that you don't want to get sliding outward in a turn, and then let up the brake and suddenly have it regain traction. That can cause a high-side.
-
Well the picture at the top of the article is of a bosozuku (just google or bing it) bike and helmets from Japan, so not germane to the article at all. Makes you wonder about the veracity of the rest of it - even though it is pretty hard to debate that no helmet and hard object is just bad all around in a collision. If you can't use pictures from the state in question, what else did the reporter get wrong?
-
This is an odd report for sure.
The drinking increase is a coincidence...do not see how they could add that in as a correlation but...........
Dunno.....one of the recurring arguments against helmet laws in SC is that much of the business income from biker rallies would be lost.......have the number of biker rallies in Michigan increased since helmet laws were repealed? They are, after all, drinking events....
-
If your front tire skids from over braking, you need to let up enough on the brake lever to get it rolling again immediately. Make sure it's pointed in your direction of travel when you do that. From what you described, it was turned to the right, so when it started rolling again, it made the bike go that direction suddenly.
It's the rear wheel that you don't want to get sliding outward in a turn, and then let up the brake and suddenly have it regain traction. That can cause a high-side.
The front wheel was turned left, when I released the brake bike went left and me right, happened so fast I had no idea the tire was locked. The tires were super hard compound and lasted 34K. There was no squealing. I am fully aware of what happened now and understand the dynamics of high-siding.
-
You should take care that your head does not strike a hard object in the event of a crash.
If you cannot do that, you should drink before riding as the crash will hurt less that way.
#
#
#
#
Until later.
-
The topic of helmet laws carries over into other concerns and issues.
As a society we pay for all kinds of things where people do things that jeopardize their health or safety. To single out those not wearing helmets by choice and then saying they should pay for that choice runs counter to how our society see things.
Consider that the rider who chooses not to wear a helmet gets into a collision. Are going to say that since it was their choice not to wear a helmet that the taxpayer should not take care of them? Aren't we forgetting something in that position?
If the non-helmeted ride was run into through no fault of their own, how do we justify saying that there should be no mechanism to treat their injuries other than their own money if they are unable to do so? Do we also apply that standard to everything else?
Fine then, let's expand that to armored riding gear too. How about the rider who chooses not to wear boots or gloves? It is a very slippery slope.
If the collision causing the accident is not the fault of the non-helmeted rider, which one of us can honestly say there should be no support if the other person is at fault and they cannot or will not provide for the medical treatment?
Do we abandon people who choose for whatever reason, not to wear a seat belt and then deny them any support because they made a bad choice?
It is said full face helmets provide better protection than open face helmets. Do we implement a means or methods test to determine who would receive medical care if the rider can't pay for it?
If the non-helmeted rider gets injured and their insurance runs out but they need continued medical care, how do we justify denying that care when we do not do so for anything else, including negligent behavior?
Isn't that creating a separate and unequal standard that applies only to motorcyclists? If that is the case, then car drivers have the same argument to say that any motorcyclists should not receive any taxpayer benefit for medical care because motorcycles are less protective if the rider than cars are for the driver.
If we accept that, then the days will come when your motorcycle will need an airbag or you will have to wear a balloon suit or something like that, not because of a choice you made other than to ride a motorcycle.
I hope we don't push such an agenda because it is easy to draw others into that while ignoring other things we do with which others do not agree.
-
Every motorcycle riders manual I have seen tells me to wear a helmet, boots gloves, a jacket etc. I am instructed to check out my motorcycle before riding, maintain it properly and in bold letters 'not to drink and drive'.
If I was injured in an accident I wonder how far an insurance company would go to deny me coverage if I was found to not be operating the motorcycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, let alone the traffic laws of the land?
I do not feel the state should cover the medical costs of persons who choose to not wear a helmet and incur a head injury as a result of their own actions while riding a motorcycle, why should I as a taxpayer have to support an individual who willingly chooses to not wear a helmet?
If someone wants to be FREE to not wear a helmet then I should be FREE to not pay for their poor decision.
-
I strongly feel that - completely aside from helmet laws - insurance (including social insurance) should be able to deny claims or service for people without special coverage for injuries that happen while not wearing a helmet. Yes, that means they should kick the fool out of the emergency room and let them bleed out on the curb. At the very most the hospitals should provide only the minimum care necessary. Harsh I know, but it is a risk the individual chose to make and if they lose the bet they have to pay the price.
The same should apply for 'no seat belt' injuries.
Parents of children injured without safety equipment should be jailed and publicly flogged.
Insurance companies should be able to capitalize with "no helmet" riders at additional cost which could reduce the general cost for the rest of us.
I know this upsets some of you and I am sorry, but we should not all have to pay for the bad choices of a few.
-
It'll never fly. A doctor and a hospital has a duty to treat you. They know they'll get paid by somebody, whether it's the patient's insurance, Medicaid, or by all of us in our uninsured motorist part of our insurance premiums.
I strongly feel that - completely aside from helmet laws - insurance (including social insurance) should be able to deny claims or service for people without special coverage for injuries that happen while not wearing a helmet. Yes, that means they should kick the fool out of the emergency room and let them bleed out on the curb. At the very most the hospitals should provide only the minimum care necessary. Harsh I know, but it is a risk the individual chose to make and if they lose the bet they have to pay the price.
The same should apply for 'no seat belt' injuries.
Parents of children injured without safety equipment should be jailed and publicly flogged.
Insurance companies should be able to capitalize with "no helmet" riders at additional cost which could reduce the general cost for the rest of us.
I know this upsets some of you and I am sorry, but we should not all have to pay for the bad choices of a few.
-
Plenty of motorcyclists do not carry medical insurance as part of their motorcycle insurance policy. They rely upon their medical insurance. That drives up costs too.
Why should motorcyclists not be required to carry medical insurance on their bike policy since it would reduce the costs to all others and riding a motorcycle is a choice and according to many, a dangerous choice, helmet or not?
My point here is that we already provide benefits to people, regardless of the choices they make. If we want to single out motorcyclists that don't wear helmets, then why nor for every other choice we think is a bad choice? Many sports carry a significant risk, do we simply say no medical benefits if their insurance runs out just because they chose to engage in a dangerous sport?
If the same standard for non helmet wearing motorcyclists isn't applied to all other activities, isn't that hypocritical?
Take the guy who is working on his Moto Guzzi and puts it on the center stand to perform some work. He doesn't tie it down and leans forward a bit and it rolls off the center stand and crushes his arm. His insurance runs out or he didn't have enough to cover the long term care. Do we throw him to the wolves and say he should have known better and since he did not, beat it?
I agree that everyone riding a motorcycle should wear a helmet, I wouldn't without one. But not all states require a rider to wear a helmet. That leaves the choice up to them. No one like to pay for the choices of another but we all share resources of those who disagree with our choices don't we?
If anyone feels so strongly about not paying for the non-helmeted wearing motorcyclists, they too have a choice, to self insure and therefore not be affected by the insurance policy rates. If it is tax money, then there are so many other things we pay for, take medical care for criminals which cost us far more than what helmet less motorcyclists cost society.
If we look at medical benefits or any benefits and decide that no one making choices we think are dangerous should be entitled to them, who among us would be unaffected and not come under that umbrella?
Making motorcyclists the example is justified how? Maybe someone didn't wear a jacket but wire a helmet. Deny them support?
How about the rider who knowing new motorcycles stop much faster (as we have discussed) than old motorcycles decides to ride the older motorcycle anyway and runs into something because he couldn't stop as fast as the new bike? Do we say they should not be able to ride the older bike because that old bike can't stop as fast as the new one?
The above are still choices and that is really what this is all about, the freedom to choose and the acceptance of shared responsibility even when we disagree with those choices. If we throw that out, then who can complain when someone else does it to you?
-
That is an argument reductio ad absurdium..
I am dead set against helmet laws, everyone should have the choice, but in making the choice they need shoulder the burden of their choice.
The same goes for smokers, the obese, et.al.. insurance companies do charge different rates for those people and that is as it should be. many insurance policies do have caveats for extreme sports, for example mountain climbing or sky diving or riding rough stock, and people do pay more for riders to cover them in those sports.
If an insurance company can discriminate against people who choose the risk of smoking then they should be able to discriminate against those who choose to participate in sports without safety equipment.
-
Were anyone here to get in an accident while not wearing a helmet and the call go out for help, I see it an unconscionable act that I not help in what way I could or advocate they not get medical care even if they are without the means to pay for it because its their fault they didn't have a helmet on.
-
Irrespective of our views about mandatory helmet laws, the take-home lesson from the article is that when the law was abolished, more people foolishly (depending on your view) didn't wear helmets. It wasn't getting rid of the law that caused the extra deaths, it was the response to getting rid of the law.
-
O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?
-
O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?
A slightly different spelling, but probably what was meant: Wikipedia Article "Bōsōzoku" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%8Ds%C5%8Dzoku)
-
O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?
From Wikipedia:
Bōsōzoku (暴走族?, literally "running-out-of-control (as of a vehicle) tribe") is a Japanese youth subculture associated with customized motorcycles.
-
Interesting tidbit. The state of Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law and not unexpectedly, injuries and deaths have gone way up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/biker-injuries-and-deaths-soar-after-michigan-repeals-helmet-law_568feb56e4b0c8beacf6be7a
Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found.
About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets.
Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward.
-
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/21/michigan-motorcycle-fatalities-drop/26151543/
Sam
-
Interesting tidbit. The state of Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law and not unexpectedly, injuries and deaths have gone way up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/biker-injuries-and-deaths-soar-after-michigan-repeals-helmet-law_568feb56e4b0c8beacf6be7a
Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found.
About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets.
Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward.
"Among those", and giving a percentage change, but no absolute numbers.
How many before? How many after?
-
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/21/michigan-motorcycle-fatalities-drop/26151543/
Sam
From the article you linked above. National statistics reveal increased death rate among helmet-less riders.
" Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, dismissed suggestions that helmet use is not an effective means of boosting safety.
"Wearing a helmet is the most important thing a motorcyclist can do to reduce their risk of serious injury," Rader said.
He cited data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted motorcyclists to suffer brain injuries, and the risk of being killed in a crash is 37% lower for motorcyclists who are helmeted.
Rader said that the average insurance payment for injuries to motorcyclists increased by 22% in the wake of the change in the law".
-
How does it go? Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you believe someone not wearing a helmet should be denied coverage because it's an unnecessary risk then you should also believe anyone riding a motorcycle should be denied coverage for the same reason. Why should anyone have to bear the cost if someone is stupid enough to ride a motorcycle when they could drive a car or take public transport?
-
OK , first off , the lead in picture is silly , those types of helmets are almost useless and have very little to do with safety . Second , the findings re alcohol use increasing don't make ant sense . Why would folks prone to drinking and riding drink more because the weren't wearing a helmet ? Seems this research may be highly flawed . Yeah , wearing a helmet is wise , but this sounds more like a crusade than a well documented study .
Dusty
Dusty,
This is the abstract from the The Journal of Surgery which is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Access to the article is $35 so the best I could find is the abstract.
http://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610%2815%2930005-2/abstract
Abstract
Background
Michigan repealed a 35-year mandatory helmet law in April 2012. We examined the impact of this legislation on a level 1 trauma center.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study comparing the 7-month period before and the 3 motorcycle seasons after the helmet law repeal.
Results
A total of 345 patients were included in the study. Nonhelmeted riders increased from 7% to 28% after the repeal. Nonhelmeted crash scene fatalities were higher after the repeal (14% vs 68%). The nonhelmeted cohort had significantly higher in-patient mortality (10% vs 3%), injury severity score (19 vs 14.5) and abbreviated injury scale head (2.2 vs 1.3). Non-helmeted riders also had increased alcohol use, intensive care unit length of stay and need for mechanical ventilation. The median hospital cost for the non-helmeted cohort was higher (P < .05).
Conclusions
The impact of the Michigan helmet law repeal continues to evolve. Three years after this legislative change, we are now observing increased injury severity score, higher in-patient mortality, and worse neurologic injury.
-
It'll never fly. A doctor and a hospital has a duty to treat you. They know they'll get paid by somebody, whether it's the patient's insurance, Medicaid, or by all of us in our uninsured motorist part of our insurance premiums.
That's not true. Hospitals without ERs do not have to accept patients via an emergency because they do not have an emergency room. They are sent to a trauma center. It's also not true that the hospital will get paid no matter what. I ran a clinic in the level I trauma center with 1000 beds. Our department was reimbursed (at a lower rate) by the hospital for non insured patients. The hospital then had to eat the looses and figure out how to make up for it in other ways. Raising charges to the uninsured is about the only way they can get money back. All hospitals negotiate contracts with individual insurance companies so it is not a matter of raising rates on insurance companies. Medicaid sets its own reimbursement rates and they are extremely low.
Many hospitals have closed their ERs so they could control looses by not admitting uninsured people. This happens more in rural areas than large urban areas hence you have a higher rate of dying from say a heart attack in some rural areas due to hospital closures. Politics aside, hospitals wanted the Affordable Health Care act implemented purely on as a business decision. Their looses are far less with more insured people coming through the doors.
-
Harv , I understand that crashing W/O a helmet leads to a greater risk of injury . My problem is with the use of a ridiculous photo that has nothing to do with the issue and the misleading or faulty statistic re alcohol use that indicates the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use . A style of sensationalizing one side of an argument that I strongly disagree with . Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .
Dusty
-
Harv , I understand that crashing W/O a helmet leads to a greater risk of injury . My problem is with the use of a ridiculous photo that has nothing to do with the issue and the misleading or faulty statistic re alcohol use that indicates the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use . A style of sensationalizing one side of an argument that I strongly disagree with . Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .
Dusty
Dusty,
Unfortunately the article posted is not the scientific article. It is a "health care" article written by a layman in a newspaper so they put up photos of stupid helmets. But the scientific article made note that there was an increase in alcohol content of helmet-less riders. This was a statistical fact that was included in the scientific finds. Did they say the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use? No they did not. At least not in the abstract and I quote " Non-helmeted riders also had increased alcohol use, intensive care unit length of stay and need for mechanical ventilation".
Reading the article in Reuters it says something different. The Reuters article says "Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission". What we do not know is what the Journal of Surgery article said. I am not going to pay $35 for article when I already where a top of the line full face helmet and never drink and drive.
I have published 3 peer reviewed journal articles in my field. I have been interviewed about 6 times for articles written by laymen. I always have to go to great lengths to stress at the beginning of the interview that I have a right to review and ask for changes in how I am quoted just because so many heath care articles suck and get it wrong. And even then I have been misquoted. Reuters may very will be misquoting the original paper. There are a lot of lax journalists out there.
-
Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .
Better stay away from the Harley/Guzzi engine thread then. :laugh:
-
Better stay away from the Harley/Guzzi engine thread then. :laugh:
I should have stipulated that silliness in the pursuit of humor is wonderful :laugh:
Now , where is my helmet , I want to bang my head against the computer :rolleyes: :grin:
Dusty
-
Now , where is my helmet , I want to bang my head against the computer :rolleyes: :grin:
Dusty
Hang on, let me find the stat for that before you start banging.
-
The lay article/study is great. Really great. "among those that I have seen"...
How many did he see in 2014? How many did he see in 2015?
If 2014 was 10 helmetless riders admitted with injuries and two died, then he had a 20% loss.
If 2015 was 2 helmetless riders admitted with injuries and one died, then he had a 50% loss.
But, he had a decrease in the real number of losses/deaths.
Extreme example, I know, but articles that don't include hard numbers mean nothing.
Michigan's citizens got the helmet law repealed. It's thier State and laws like this are the reservation of The States. One reason given, at the time, was to increase out of State riders coming to Michigan.
So, I'd like to know a few things before I take any study's word for it:
-Number of motorcycle miles ridden in Michigan before the helmet law was repealed.
-Number of motorcycle miles ridden in Michigan after the helmet law was repealed.
-Number of Michigan residents vs out of State residents injured in motorcycle accidents before the law was repealed.
-Number of Michigan residents vs out of State residents injured in motorcycle accidents after the law was repealed.
-accident and death rates compared to number of motorcycle miles ridden before and after the law was repealed.
My guess is that the numbers of riders, both resident and non-resident, have gone up dramatically in Michigan, giving The People there exactly what they wanted with the change in the law.
-
This is as comprehensive as you want. If you want to spend the time to read it. I just speed read the first few pages and the detail is considerable.
From the introduction. They are focusing on helmet use specifically to see if it reduces fatalities.
The number of motorcyclist fatalities has climbed 122 percent since 1997, with 4,810 motorcyclists being killed in 2006. Motorcyclists represented more than 11 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006, compared to only 5 percent in 1997. From 1997 through 2006, there were 33,385 motorcyclist fatalities. This report focuses on motorcycle riders because the vast majority of fatal motorcycle crashes involve motorcycles without passengers, only riders. These fatalities include over 25,000 motorcycle riders who have been fatally injured in either single- vehicle motorcycle crashes or two-vehicle crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle. Given that motorcycle fatalities make up an increasing proportion of total traffic fatalities, our attention turns to methods that might reduce motorcycle fatalities. One method of reducing motorcycle fatalities is through motorcycle helmet use. Thus our report tries to answer the following research question: What factors are most strongly associated with motorcycle helmet use in fatal crashes?
Single-vehicle motorcycle crashes and two-vehicle crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle were examined separately in this report. This stratification was chosen due to the differing patterns seen between the motorcycle riders in the single-vehicle crashes compared to the riders in the two-vehicle crashes.
An Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Use In Fatal Crashes 2008
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811011.pdf
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Methodology
IV. Results
Motorcycle Rider and Passenger Vehicle Driver Fatalities, by Year
Motorcycle Rider Fatalities, by Helmet Use and Year
Passenger Vehicle Driver Fatalities, by Restraint Use and Year.
Helmet Use.
Single- and Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes
Single- and Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes, by Year
State Motorcycle Helmet Laws
Motorcycle Engine Size
Time of Day
Weekday/Weekend Sex
Injury Severity
Age Group
Number of Motorcyclists per Motorcycle
Blood Alcohol Concentration
V. Logistic Regression Analysis
-
Harv , no one is arguing that helmets save lives , only that the Rueters story was faulty . Using flawed studies and reporting to further a cause is always wrong .
Dusty
-
Harv , no one is arguing that helmets save lives , only that the Rueters story was faulty . Using flawed studies and reporting to further a cause is always wrong .
Dusty
I would agree the Reuters article leaving something to be desired but there is nothing to indicate that the study they quoted is flawed. The problem is we having nothing to base our judgement about the study being flawed because none of us has read it. The abstract is all we have to go on. That and anything that is in "quotation marks" in the news report.
-
They actually had to run a study to determine this? Common sense has been lost for quite a while now.
-
So they are comparing Michigan riders with Japanese gangs? I think they are fabricating evidence to suite their needs.
-
I still aver that the article wasn't about whether helmets save lives (most sensible people would accept that they do), but whether eliminating a helmet use law causes a decrease in helmet use. I think the article is convincing on that point.
-
Nope , what the article proved is
Dusty
-
This is as comprehensive as you want.
"The number of motorcyclist fatalities has climbed 122 percent since 1997, with 4,810 motorcyclists being killed in 2006. Motorcyclists represented more than 11 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006, compared to only 5 percent in 1997. From 1997 through 2006, there were 33,385 motorcyclist fatalities. "
Yes, but what was the increase in motorcycles on the roads during that time? What was the increase in motorcycle miles ridden during that time?
It was a huge time of growth in motorcycling. Millions of motorcycles were sold in The USA during those years. An increase in accidents and death would not be unexpected.
-
I still aver that the article wasn't about whether helmets save lives (most sensible people would accept that they do), but whether eliminating a helmet use law causes a decrease in helmet use. I think the article is convincing on that point.
Articles and studies like this create more questions than they answer.
As you say, helmets can saves lives. However, how many motorcyclists lives would be saved if automobile drivers drive safer and paid more attention to motorcycles. We can of course, agree that the accident would happen anyway and that the question is still focused on the use of helmets but that type of study ignores the root of the problem.
Many studies start looking at a problem from some arbitrary starting poi t in the sequence of events that led to the result.
I can't say for sure but I'm guessing that most motorcycle related fatalities don't happen because the ride fell off the bike but was caused to fall as the result of someone else's actions.
Did the initial cause of the crash become a significant statistic in the study? If crashes where the motorcyclist died was separated according to at fault, no fault or both at fault, might the number of deaths point to the real problem, one which is masked by introducing the helmet as a mitigating factor?
If a majority of the deaths resulted because if the fault of a car or truck driver, then the use of a helmet becomes much less significant because reducing the actual cause of the crash is attainable by better driver training and more public awareness campaigning directed toward car and truck drivers.
I say all this because if a study addresses an arbitrary starting point in a sequence of events and then cites the treatment of a symptom, that seems to be an agenda.
If a significant majority of motorcycle related deaths would not have happened had the crashes where car or truck drivers were at fault not occurred, the use of a helmet is questionable as a way to reduce those deaths. It puts the emphasis on the motorcyclist to prevent something by using a helmet when the solution is actually something else.
Maybe the use of helmets (something I agree with) isn't really that much of a factor if the real cause of the crashes are prevented.
No doubt, it is far easier to blame the non-helmeted wearing motorcycle rider for their own death than blame the driver training and those running into motorcycles.
Maybe we should also blame pedestrians who get killed when run over because they didn't wear a michilein man type bubble suit.
I do support the wearing of helmets while riding a motorcycle but I think maybe motorcyclists are being blamed for their own deaths to push some agenda.
-
I can't say for sure but I'm guessing that most motorcycle related fatalities don't happen because the ride fell off the bike but was caused to fall as the result of someone else's actions.
In my State, motorcycle crashes and deaths are largely single-vehicle-accidents. Mostly because the new or re-entry rider "failed to negotiate a curve". Many times, they're at night and alcohol is involved.
Sure, there are many left-turn and rear-end accidents where there is an automobile and driver as the cause, but in the annual report of traffic deaths put out by the state police, those are far fewer than the single-vehicle-accidents.
-
How does it go? Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you believe someone not wearing a helmet should be denied coverage because it's an unnecessary risk then you should also believe anyone riding a motorcycle should be denied coverage for the same reason. Why should anyone have to bear the cost if someone is stupid enough to ride a motorcycle when they could drive a car or take public transport?
That is not what I said at all. I said that people who choose not to wear motorcycles should have to carry insurance specific for that if they want injuries caused while not wearing safety equipment to be covered. People riding motorcycles are already required to have insurance specific to their mode of transportation.
The levels of coverage and specifics are contained in the contract between each individual and their insurance company.
i could completely see our king doing something like excluding motorcycle injuries from coverage under the Affordable Care Act requiring individuals to have specific coverage. I am not saying it would be right, just that it could happen.
-
Two words ,
Bob Newhart
Dusty
-
In California, it is also reported by the DMV that most accidents involving motorcycles are single vehicle. I don't know where the stats come from, hopefully they would be accurate.
If that is accepted at face value and is representative in all states, it would still seem to point to training as the more important factor in reducing motorcycle crash deaths than relying on the helmet. In other words the emphasis remains on the safety equipment and not the safe riding or driving skills of the people involved.
If those stats are true and.let's say they are, if many if those could be eliminated or prevented through better training, would the use of helmets still be the most significant factor in reducing the deaths which it appears is the conclusion the reports tend to focus on?
I have no idea about that being true or not but since the reports seem to leave that question out of scope, how would we know?
Let's say it is true though, it points a rather big finger at at the lack if rider training as the more important factor in preventing motorcycle rider deaths and that is contrary to the information being put out. Why that might be is another one of those questions not answered for lack of information, as would be the reason that isn't pursued in the studies.
It sure seems like a grant in the waiting to look into that and to approaching motorcycle rider deaths prevention in the direction of training as a fix instead of a commercial one, the selling of helmets.
-
Wow, I have seen riders planning on denying people medical assistance because they didn't do what the rider thought should be done-and raining the "cost to society" argument.
"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".
-
"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".
Yep.
-
I think I've read in an AMA publication that most motorcycle accidents, also most fatal ones, are one-vehicle accidents. Perhaps in some cases the accident happened because the rider swerved or over-braked to avoid an automobile, but in probably the majority of cases the rider simply lost control of his/her bike. You can't really blame inattentive car drivers for that.
It's true that better rider training can reduce the number of these accidents, and I note that virtually all rider training courses REQUIRE helmet use. This could even be considered an important part of the training.
-
" as a result of their own actions "
Most single vehicle crashes occur in curves. Riders misjudge entry speed, especially the newbies. A bit of training goes a long way. Usually to the first stop sign. I have encountered former students riding helmetless here in SC, which has a Michigan type law. Sure, no one wakes up and decides to crash on any given day. I did not two years ago. My new Vemar was less than 8 hours old. Face plant: scuffed shield, cracked shell and crushed liner at the base of my skull. Lucky.
-
Its probably difficult to ask the dead motorcycle rider why they crashed it's a one vehicle accident.
Many of us can relate having to take evasive actions to avoid the inattentive actions of others. Sooner or later, your number can come up, how many people would bother to look back or turn back to check on the bike they ran off the road, especially considering they weren't paying attention in the first place?
I think a lot more riders are run off the roads than we might know, who do you ask what happened if the rider is dead and no one else claimed they were the ones crossing a yellow line in a curve?
Cause of death? Motorcycle? Easy, no car driver around to ask? Check the lost control box. Less work, fewer inquires and the is no incentive to say otherwise, crash investigations are costly.
-
No idea about how hard LEOs work to investigate accident scenes in California . However , I have a good friend here that is a state trooper AND a motorcycle rider , as are lots of LEOs . Riding with him has given me some insight into how thoroughly any accident is investigated . Troopers are held to a high standard in this activity , and at least in Oklahoma are usually brought in to investigate crashes . It is surprising to see how many tools are in their toolbox that allows them to make a determination on what caused the wreck . Just like with cars , alcohol and a lack of attention to the task at hand are major contributors to MC crashes .
Dusty
-
I think a lot more riders are run off the roads than we might know, who do you ask what happened if the rider is dead and no one else claimed they were the ones crossing a yellow line in a curve?
While I don't doubt that what you suggest occasionally happens, so many motorcyclists ride in pairs and groups that if such a thing happened, it would be reported.
The police reports and news reports usually have "the witnesses reported" comments. And, I don't recall many reports noting "motorcyclist forced off of the roadway by oncoming vehicle".
I've come up on a bunch of single-vehicle-accidents over the years here in The Ozarks, and the victim's buddies and witnesses are usually parked along the roadside, watching the ambulance crews work.
As far as the riders wrapping themselves around trees at midnight on a Saturday night and returning a BAC over the legal limit? Well, it's more likely that they just rode off the roadway than were forced off by some random motorist.
In Arkansas, State Police will be called to the scene if it's a State or Federal highway.
-
Then there sure is a need for much better training than is being required. I say required because it seems that the skills tests for motorcycle licenses is very lame compared to a car license test which isn't all that great either.
Even some of the MSF training is lacking. I took one not so long ago and on the last day, there were people getting signed off that you'd want to make sure they were headed in the opposite direction.
In the end, if that many motorcycle riders are running off the roads and killing themselves, helmets probably aren't the answer but it could be the easiest one the blame.
Blaming no helmet use is far less expensive and much easier to do than blaming a lack of training and doing something about it. Passing a law that requires wearing a helmet doesn't cost nearly as much as mandating better training and much better licensing tests.
-
Wow, I have seen riders planning on denying people medical assistance because they didn't do what the rider thought should be done-and raining the "cost to society" argument.
"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".
Wow, I have seen riders stating that anybody should be able to do anything at any cost to society without responsibility for their own actions and we are just supposed to stand quietly and pay the bill. And we wonder why society is less than loving toward motorcyclists.
Yes, we have seen the enemy and he is us..
-
Late to this party but I think a couple of others have pointed out that any article or study that doesn't state the raw numbers is probably just pushing an agenda. And any study or article that just uses the raw numbers is probably doing the same thing.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/2015/04/23/mototcycle-helmet-laws-michgian/26251501/
There's so many variables to what causes people to die on motorcycles that you will never be able to make motorcycling safe by addressing just one of them (helmets). You'd have to outlaw the whole concept of motorcycling. Focusing on just the helmet is just seeing something you don't like and saying "there ought to be a law against that" (James Gregory reference :grin: ).
Who's the safer rider? The guy who doesn't wear a helmet but 1) doesn't drink and drive, 2) doesn't speed, and 3) has taken and advanced safety course, or the guy who wears a helmet, t-shirt, shorts and tennis shoes? In the end it's up for all of us to decide how we're going to play the game and helmet laws, in my mind, are useless. Outlaw bunk beds instead...
-
Many good arguments here, a full variety of opinions, links to studies, first person accounts etc... I just get so tired of the argument that helmets will not prevent all injuries or death, suggesting that if we can't prevent all injuries or deaths we should not encourage helmet use to prevent riders suffering a brain injury or a family loosing a loved one.
Bottom line,
regardless of the cause, single vehicle or multiple vehicle, road conditions, weather et all.... If you are riding a motorcycle at more than running speed and you fall off, get knocked off, whatever causes ones head to strike the ground, tree, light pole, curb, turnip wagon etc... without a helmet you have a high likelihood of suffering a major brain trauma or death.
I am not advocating legislating wearing of a helmet but if one chooses to ride without one then the cost of their insurance should reflect their choice.
-
People riding motorcycles are already required to have insurance specific to their mode of transportation.
Really not in my helmetless state. I have bike insurance which covers my bike and me for liability. You basically are saying that insurance coverage should be based on riding gear which you seem to deem sufficient. why should my health care rate or taxes have to cover your motorcycle injuries if the exceed your coverage just because you choose to ride a motorcycle?
take it a step further and i'd say that your normal life insurance shouldn't have to pay out if you die riding a motorcycle, unless you pay for a specific die on a motorcycle rider.
-
I am not advocating legislating wearing of a helmet but if one chooses to ride without one then the cost of their insurance should reflect their choice.
Tonight, I'm sitting here pondering the price of tea in China. And, how helmet laws and the cost of motorcycle insurance in Michigan have any interest to a motorcyclist in Alberta Canada.
Tomorrow, I shall ride helmetless here in Arkansas, in your honor.
:evil:
-
Interesting. But, I don't care if there is a helmet law or not. Kinda like seat belts for me.
Yeah, I know, big brother and all that. Big whoop.
If I had a choice, there would be no helmet laws, no airbag laws, no seat belt laws, and fewer laws in general.
I am only ticked cause there is still ice in the driveway and the temp for my commute this morning was 7F. :(
-
Tonight, I'm sitting here pondering the price of tea in China. And, how helmet laws and the cost of motorcycle insurance in Michigan have any interest to a motorcyclist in Alberta Canada.
Tomorrow, I shall ride helmetless here in Arkansas, in your honor.
:evil:
Helmet laws in Michigan have nothing to do with me, rider safety, lives saved, etc... well I do care about that, regardless of location
Ride safe, lid or no lid, the site needs a moderator with his full faculties :grin:
-
the site needs a moderator with his full faculties :grin:
Luap is still searching for one of those...
:boozing:
-
Helmet laws in Michigan have nothing to do with me, rider safety, lives saved, etc... well I do care about that, regardless of location
Ride safe, lid or no lid, the site needs a moderator with his full faculties :grin:
Luap is still searching for one of those...
:boozing:
Good luck with that :rolleyes:
Dusty
-
When you think! about it, and this is just a wild guess, the main cause of death in a crash is either a bad head injury or you bleed to death.
I know that all late model autos have airbags but my bet is its the same for both types of vehicles, either single track or autos.
So why do we not have helmet laws for autos/
:-)
-
Or 5 point restraint harnesses for motorbikes :huh:
Dusty
-
Ha!
No matter what type of restraint system I'd bet the cause of death will be the same!
-
Interesting. But, I don't care if there is a helmet law or not. Kinda like seat belts for me.
Yeah, I know, big brother and all that. Big whoop.
If I had a choice, there would be no helmet laws, no airbag laws, no seat belt laws, and fewer laws in general.
Who bails out the helmet-less riders when they wreck? Here is an interesting quote from an article discussing the possible upcoming mudslides in Los Angles via the El Nino. It's the same concept. All these very rich people have built homes on the sides of hills that are prone to mudslides. In 1983 250 homes collapsed and who footed the bill because rich people built homes in a mud zone?
Technology has improved reducing the risks of these home sliding down the hill but there is still a risk. Who is going to foot the bill (again) if the rains are extreme and the million dollar mansions are destroyed?
From this article http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/12/el-nino-threatens-homes-built-on-california-hillsides.html
"In 1983, 250 Malibu homes collapsed, cracked or slipped off their foundations in the Big Rock Mesa landslide, one of the worst in state history. A tentative settlement was reached more than four years later with the county, state and insurance companies that paid homeowners $97 million in damages or about $200,000 for each homeowner.
“We have the technology to be able to build in those areas, sure, but you do calculate some risk in that,” Lang said. “What’s the social responsibility for sharing an insurance risk with a person who’s rich and lives on a risky hillside. It’s within their right as a land purchaser to build but the issue is more public responsibility of the public pool of insurance.”
In a sense, he said, everybody ends up bailing out the rich."
-
All of those homes have been issued building permits by their local government. City, County, whatever. At some point, they should not issue permits to properties that are sure to fall. My guess is the permits department didn't think all those houses would fall.
All of those homes are insured, and probably have mud slide riders. Shame on the insurance companies for taking FOUR YEARS to pay their policy holders !!!
I know mud slide riders exist, because a local family here just got fv<ked by their insurance company after the recent heavy rains caused a mud slide that damaged their house. You guessed it: No mud slide rider. (mud slides are exceedingly rare here). No homeowners insurance coverage for the damage. Crazy.
-
Back in the mid 80's the city where I live decided to redevelop the low lands along the river. Previous council bought up most of the properties in the floor plain (several 100 homes) with grand plans of building a weir and creating a man made lake in the centre of town. Well that plan was abandoned and so the city sold all the properties and re-serviced the whole area with upgraded utilities.
The caveat on the sale was that new property owners would release the city form all future claims related to flooding. The river is controlled up in the Rockies by several dams but inevitably the river still will and has flooded, last time was the year before I bought into the neighbourhood. On top of that there is no flood insurance available in Canada. And lastly the 100 year flood plain is about smack through the middle of my property. Home insurance policies do not cover any damage at or below the flood plain, meaning the whole basement, yard, any utilities damage by flood etc.
I accept the risk for living in the river valley, and when it floods I hope to be long gone and living on the West Coast so I only need to worry about forest fire, tsunami's and earth quakes. :violent1:
Should the 100 year flood come before I leave I will be in for a lot of work and out a lot of $$$.
-
A lot of money changes hands when developers want to build. Those areas in California prone to mudslides were approved for building by the planning and permitting authorities.
The permits don't mean someone is required to tell the developer how to build a house to survive a mudslide, the owner should do some due diligence and get engineering help to build for that condition. That probably happened to some extent but follow the money. Someone made a lot if money building those homes and since from the developer to the building inspection money changed hands, and a lot if it, it got covered.
Don't forget who got on TV and said that California would make it right, movie star governor and guess who owns a lot of those homes affected? The rich and famous.
Insurances are allowed to exclude so many things you really don't get a lot for the premiums these days.
The first thing they do is exclude what is likely to set the policy holder back with a life changing event. Take earthquakes and floods. Good luck if you aren't selling out extra but the building methods exist, at least for earthquakes to build so that most home would survive, yet there is no building requirement to do so.
The damage from an earthquake isn't covered, the fire resulting from the earthquake is. Go figure.
-
.... why do we not have helmet laws for autos/
Well, we do have seat belt laws for autos, not that they're enforced very strictly. And, like helmets for motorcyclists, seat belts for car occupants do seem to save lives. Not every time, but often enough. We can extend the logic by supposing that parachutes probably save lives of sky divers.
-
I like to vacation at a condo on N Padre Island (south of Port Aransas). There are a few condos and a Holiday Inn built right off the beach. Everything built since have been built about a block from the beach.
I am told that these few properties retain flood insurance for one time. After that, rebuilding the property must be done a block away like the remainder of the subsequent contraction. Flood insurance would not be extended to rebuild on the beach.
And then I go to Florida and see many Gulf Coast properties built right on the beach. :undecided:
-
Someone already posted, above a certain speed, helmet or not, your brain is pretty mushed up. You might look OK but you could still be in the wheelchair or bed sipping food through a straw, or worse.
How do we know the rider who hits a tree at 40 mph and dies would not have were they wearing a helmet or had they survived wouldn't be a vegetable for the remainder of their life?
How does the type of life remaining after a serious head impact above a certain speed come into consideration when we talk about medical benefits and who gets them?